jcp-efficiency: the outcome anchor is not ours alone; the signature is #319
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "fix/efficiency-outcome-anchor-prior-art"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Second finding from the claim-falsification sweep. Verified against the primary source before changing published text.
The claim, in three places
src/lib.rs— "the four figures that matter, plus the one thing the incumbents omit — the outcome anchor"MAPPING.md§0 — "seals all four with the outcome anchor the rates omit"jcp/README.md— "with the one thing the rates omit: the outcome anchor"Why it no longer holds
Panigrahy, Tyagi, Abkin, Houngninou and Mahapatra, Energy per Successful Goal: Goal-Level Energy Accounting for Agentic AI Systems (arXiv:2605.22883, v1 2026-05-20, v2 2026-10-12), defines EpG:
That is the same denominator
uj_per_completed_unit()computes, waste included — not an adjacent idea. It comes with a measurement framework attributing RAPL and ARM hardware counters to workflow energy, and an Orchestration Overhead Index.What survives, and is now the claim rather than an assumption inside a bigger one
The paper is a calculation and reporting convention. It describes measurement, attribution and a reproducibility protocol; no part of it signs or attests the figure. So
efficiency/1adds not the anchor but the artifact — a signed, honest-provenance, verifiable receipt carrying it.MAPPING.md's own opening already said exactly that:
which is why that sentence needed no change. It was scoped correctly; the three downstream restatements had widened it.
The edit
§0 now cites the prior art in the same ingest-not-compete form §1 already uses for GSF SCI-for-AI, with the licence constraint stated (arXiv non-exclusive — cited and briefly quoted, never reproduced). Naming it is within the naming rule, which permits "standards, standards bodies, protocols, papers and open-source projects" to be named factually;
check-public-names.shscopes towai/in any case.The private memory sentence "all RATES, none outcome-anchored" is retired in the same pass, with the citation and the reason, so the stale version cannot be re-asserted from notes.
Verification
Public text, so the guards ran locally before pushing:
check-comparative-prose.sh— clean, 2307 filescheck-no-vanity-metrics.sh— clean, 277 Markdown filescheck-spec-refs.py— 1613 citations across 15 standards, all resolvecargo test -p jcp-efficiency— 54 + 6 pass;cargo doc -p jcp-efficiency --no-depsexit 0Not claimed
This does not retire the broader "per-unit + signed + verifiable energy is regulatory whitespace" position. The sweep item bearing on that — an EU data-centre rating scheme that reportedly declines to require per-unit disclosure — is still unchecked; it could confirm the position or falsify it, and I am not guessing which.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Three places claimed the outcome anchor as the thing nobody else has: - `src/lib.rs` — "the four figures that matter, plus the one thing the incumbents omit — the **outcome anchor**" - `MAPPING.md` §0 — "seals all four **with the outcome anchor the rates omit**" - `jcp/README.md` — "with the one thing the rates omit: the **outcome anchor**" That is no longer true. Panigrahy, Tyagi, Abkin, Houngninou and Mahapatra, *Energy per Successful Goal: Goal-Level Energy Accounting for Agentic AI Systems* (arXiv:2605.22883, v1 2026-05-20, v2 2026-10-12), defines EpG as "total workflow energy across all attempts, including failures and retries, divided by successfully completed goals" — the same denominator `uj_per_completed_unit()` computes, waste included — with a measurement framework attributing RAPL and ARM counters to workflow energy. What survives the finding, and is now stated as the claim rather than assumed inside a broader one: the paper is a *calculation and reporting* convention. It describes measurement, attribution and a reproducibility protocol; no part of it signs or attests the figure. So `efficiency/1` adds not the anchor but the **artifact** — a signed, honest-provenance, verifiable receipt carrying it. MAPPING.md already said exactly that in its opening ("supplies the one thing that standard, and every deployed disclosure regime, lacks: a signed, honest-provenance, verifiable receipt carrying an outcome-anchored figure"), which is why that sentence needed no change: it was scoped correctly and the three downstream restatements were not. MAPPING.md §0 now cites the prior art in the same ingest-not-compete form §1 already uses for GSF SCI-for-AI, including the licence constraint (arXiv non-exclusive — cited and briefly quoted, never reproduced). Naming it is within the naming rule, which permits standards, bodies, protocols, papers and open-source projects to be named factually; `check-public-names.sh` scopes to `wai/` in any case. Guards run locally before pushing, since this is public text: comparative-prose clean (2307 files), no vanity metrics (277 Markdown files), check-spec-refs 1613 citations all resolving. `cargo test -p jcp-efficiency`: 54 + 6 pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>